NSA Surveillance Scandal: All Personal Records Are Relevant Is A Slippery Legal Theory To Stand On

General Keith Alexander testifies before a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in Washington on June 12, 2013.

Reuters

Ever since the USA Patriot Act was rushed through in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, some members of Congress have had buyer’s remorse, realizing over the years that they gave the executive branch and especially spy agencies too much latitude to snoop on Americans’ personal information. Hoping to rein in surveillance networks, in 2006 Congress placed a limit on the so-called personal business records that federal agencies can amass.

Under this measure, sensitive information like bank statements, library and medical records and details of phone calls could be intercepted only if “relevant” to a national security investigation. By using that word, some lawmakers say they intended to give the government the same authority to collect information that a grand jury has in a criminal investigation.

The comparison to a grand jury subpoena has become a central argument put forth by government officials defending the legality of the National Security Agency’s collection of metadata on virtually all Americans’ phone calls. However, the definition of "relevance" has apparently been substantially reinterpreted in secret opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which reviews intelligence requests for national security investigations, to allow data collection that goes far beyond what any grand jury can obtain.

“They’ve basically changed the meaning,” said Timothy H. Edgar, a privacy and civil liberties lawyer who worked for the Bush administration's director of national intelligence from 2006 to 2009 and then on President Barack Obama’s National Security Council. “Grand jury subpoenas may be broad or they may be narrow, but there’s still an outer limit as to what any grand jury would consider to be relevant.”

The relevance standard determines what information can be collected in any of type of legal investigation. Used in the context of a terrorism probe, under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the “business records” provision, the FISC can issue a warrant allowing the NSA, the government’s electronic spying arm, to obtain these records if there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation.” When leaked documents from former government contractor Edward Snowden in June revealed the full extent of the NSA’s data collection program, lawmakers realized that the relevance standard they had placed on the government’s surveillance powers had essentially been rendered moot.

Though lawmakers expressed surprise at the phone data program, a minority in Congress has worried for years that the Patriot Act’s business records provision would give the government too much authority to snoop on U.S. citizens’ personal lives. When the provision was renewed in 2011, several members tried unsuccessfully to strengthen the relevance language in the law. During that time, members of Congress were assured by the Obama administration that “nothing will be broader here than what you get in a grand jury subpoena,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who had worked to reform Section 215. “Those assurances were not true.”

A grand jury can gather a relatively large swath of information to shed light on a criminal investigation. In a Medicare fraud case, for example, a suspected doctor's billing records, going back many years, may be reviewed. Even the records of other doctors at the same practice would likely be fair game. But trying to subpoena the records of all doctors in the same state would go too far. For a grand jury to acquire information, “there has to be some plausible nexus between the information you seek, the subject of the information you seek, and the subject of your investigation,” said Nathan Sales, an expert in security law at George Mason University School of Law. “Relevance is a concept that measures the connection between two different data sets. You can’t go on a fishing expedition.”

Government officials concede that Section 215 adheres to the same relevance standard that limits grand jury investigations. Just like grand jury subpoenas, “the concept of ‘relevance’ is broad enough to allow for the collection of information beyond that which ultimately turns out to be important to a terrorist-related investigation,” said Robert Litt, general counsel for the director of national intelligence, in a speech at the Brookings Institution earlier this month, despite the fact that “the scope of the collection” in the NSA’s telephone records collection program “is broader than typically might be acquired” by a grand jury.

Under the NSA program, the government captures metadata – the numbers, times and durations of all domestic calls – but doesn’t touch it until they have reason to believe that a particular number is linked to an investigation. At that point, NSA analysts use the database to analyze the behavior and social networks of the suspected number.

Like Litt, defenders of the NSA’s program insist that the relevance standard has not been changed – just the amount of information collected. Indeed, the phone records program relies not on broad collection but limitless collection. So to rationalize that under the relevance benchmark, the government has had to argue that unless all of the records are collected, the valuable ones cannot be identified. Apparently, the FISC has endorsed this point of view.

Benjamin Wittes, a national security law expert at the Brookings Institution, summarized the government’s position in a post on the Lawfare blog on July 19: “The dataset is relevant as a whole, in the government’s view, because parts of it are relevant — the only parts humans ever see -- and those parts would not be available to investigators and analysts if the entire dataset were not preserved and placed in a form they could query.”

In other words, the argument goes, while the personal phone logs of an average American will reveal nothing about terrorist activity unless he is communicating directly with a known terrorist, only by comparing the calling patterns of millions and millions of Americans can the NSA identify outliers, which may prove to be the telephony activity of a terrorist cell.

This is the case the Justice Department made two weeks ago in a letter to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who has come out against the Section 215 program. “Because the telephony metadata must be available in bulk to allow NSA to identify the records of terrorist communications,” the letter reads, “the data is relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism, as Section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the dataset are not associated with terrorist activity.”

The growing anger and frustration among some lawmakers toward the government’s relevance rationale was in sharp relief at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 17, as Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, asked Deputy Attorney General James Cole: “How is having every phone call that I make to my wife, to my daughter, relevant to any terror investigation?”

“I don't know that every call you make to your wife or your daughter...” Cole began.

But he was cut off by Farenthold, who said sharply: “But you got them.”

In response to another set of questioning, Cole said individual records did not matter much but “it's the old adage of, if you're looking for the needle in the haystack, you have to have the entire haystack to look through.”

As Timothy Edgar put it, the government is looking at the program as a “whole package” rather than individual pieces of data. “It’s not that every record that belongs to every American is relevant to a terrorism investigation,” Edgar said. “What [the government is] saying, is that by obtaining records in bulk, by collecting records in bulk, and then doing the sort of analysis that they can do, that whole system will produce relevant information.”

That’s not just expanding the scope, Edgar said, “that’s a completely different meaning of relevance.”

Despite using the relevance standard as their legal rationale, present and former government officials often walk away from that benchmark to describe the unique challenges of a terrorist investigation – challenges that are used to justify the policy decision to acquire information first and analyze it later. “Rather than attempting to solve crimes that have happened already, we are trying to find out what is going to happen before it happens,” Litt said at the Brookings event.

The pro-active nature of counterterrorism work means pulling critical information -- like a call between two al Qaeda operatives in the United States -- out of the millions of irrelevant domestic phone calls placed every day, former government officials argue. “The trick is, we can’t identify which ones are and are not relevant until we collect it and process it or run our algorithms against it or query the database after somebody tips us off,” said Sales, who served in both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security during the George W. Bush administration.

Critics of the NSA program are growing increasingly frustrated with the relevance debate and hope to change the law so that argument becomes moot. As demonstrated by a close vote on NSA surveillance last week, a significant number of lawmakers in both parties hope to return NSA data collection activities back to what they believed they had originally had voted for. By a slim margin of only 12 votes, the House of Representatives voted to keep the program intact, defeating a measure by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and John Conyers, D-Mich., to halt bulk collection under Section 215. But the closeness of vote, in which 111 Democrats and 94 Republicans supported the bill, sent a signal that Congress has not yet accepted the government’s justification for the program, and in particular, it’s interpretation of the relevance standard.

“Relevance meant everything,” said Conyers when he emerged from the vote last Wednesday. “This analogy of a needle in a haystack is exactly the wrong example.”

NO PURCHASE OR PAYMENT NECESSARY TO ENTER OR WIN. A PURCHASE OR PAYMENT WILL NOT INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING. The Giveaway is sponsored by IBT Media Inc., 7 Hanover Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004 (“Sponsor”). The Giveaway is void where prohibited or restricted by all applicable law, and all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations apply. Winners are responsible for any taxes, customs, and duties and like amounts connected with the prizes.

1. ELIGIBILITY. The Giveaway is open only to legal residents of the 50 states of the United States and the District of Columbia who are the age of majority in their respective jurisdiction at the time of entry (19 in AL and NE and 18 in all other states). Sponsor and its advertising or promotion agencies, those involved in the production, development, implementation or handling of this Giveaway, any agents acting for, or on behalf of Sponsor, its respective affiliates, subsidiaries, licensees, service providers, and any other person or entity associated with this Giveaway are referred to as the “Giveaway Entities.” Employees, officers, and directors of the Giveaway Entities and members of their immediate families (spouses, children, siblings, parents and their spouses), and/or persons living in the same household as such persons, whether or not related, are ineligible to enter this Giveaway.

2. PROMOTION ENTRY PERIOD: The Giveaway begins on July 1, 2015 at 12:00 a.m. EST and ends at 11:59:59 p.m. September 31, 2015 (the “Giveaway Period”). When applicable, the Sponsor’s computers will be deemed the official time keeping devices for the Giveaway promotion.

3. HOW TO ENTER. You will receive one entry into the random drawing for the Giveaway Period when you provide a verified e-mail through our designated modal window interface. Limit one (1) entry per person/email address. Multiple entries will be disqualified. All previous winners of any giveaway or contest sponsored by IBT Media are not eligible to enter. Any effort by an entrant to misrepresent himself or herself through the use of aliases or multiple e-mail addresses will disqualify that entrant. Registrations generated by a script, macro or other automated means are void. You must be the rightful owner of the email address provided. In the event of a dispute as to the identity of the winner, the winner will be deemed to be the authorized account holder of the email address provided at the time of entry. Entrants must provide all information requested to be eligible to win. Incomplete or unintelligible entries, in the sole discretion of Sponsor, will be disqualified. Sponsor will not verify receipt of entries and assumes no responsibility for late, lost, damaged, misidentified or misdirected entries.

4. PRIZE DRAWINGS AND NOTIFICATION OF CHOSEN ENTRANTS. A random drawing will be conducted by Sponsor on or about the first week following the Giveaway Period from among all eligible entries received to award one prize (described below). Selected entrants will be notified by email and will be required to respond (as directed) to the e-mail notification within 72 hours of attempted notification. Failure to respond timely to the notification may result in forfeiture of the prize. Selected entrants may also be required to complete an affidavit of eligibility and liability / publicity release (except where such a requirement is prohibited by law). If the completed Release is not returned within the time specified, the prize may be forfeited.

One (1) Prize per Giveaway Period: An Apple Watch Sport™, which is a registered trademark of Apple Inc. Approximate Retail Value: $349. Limit one (1) prize per person/household. No substitution, transfer, or cash equivalent for any prize, except that Sponsor, at its sole discretion, may substitute a prize with a prize of equal value, due to unavailability of advertised prize. Each prize will be awarded provided each prize is properly claimed. The prize will be shipped by Sponsor to the winners within 1-5 weeks of the receipt of a signed affidavit for approved entries. Prize winners are responsible for all taxes and fees related to any prize received. Actual retail value of prizes may vary due to market conditions. The difference in value of prize as stated herein and value at time of prize notification, if any, will not be awarded.

5. ODDS. The odds of winning a prize will depend on the number of eligible entries received for the Giveaway Period.

6. MARKETING AND PRIVACY. Information collected in connection with entries received for this Giveaway will be used for marketing purposes. By entering the Giveaway, entrants consent to receive marketing emails with updates, offers and promotions from Sponsor or third parties. Entrants may follow instructions contained in each subsequent email communication to opt-out of receiving future email communications, however, Sponsor may still use the email address provided to notify entrant if they have been selected as a winner of this Giveaway.

7. CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION. Giveaway is subject to these Official Rules. By participating, entrants agree to be bound by these complete Official Rules. All decisions of Sponsor are final and binding; and entrants agree to waive any right to claim ambiguity in the Giveaway or these Official Rules, except where prohibited by law. In addition, each entrant represents and warrants that all information contained in his/her registration entry is true and accurate. By accepting a prize, winners agree to release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Sponsor, its attorneys, affiliates, together with the respective directors, employees, officers, licensees, licensors and agents of each, including without limitation, their respective advertising and promotion entities and any person or entity associated with the production, judging, or administration of the Giveaway (collectively, the “Releasees”) from any and all loss, damage, injury, death, or other liability, either at law or equity, whether known or unknown, asserted or non-asserted, arising from or in connection with awarding, receipt and/or use or misuse of prize or participation in the Giveaway. This Promotion shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, regardless of conflicts of laws principles. Any action or litigation concerning this Promotion shall take place exclusively in the federal or state courts sitting in New York County, New York, and each entrant expressly and irrevocably consents to the jurisdiction of and venue in such courts and waives all defenses of lack of jurisdiction and inconvenient forum with respect to such courts. Each entrant agrees to service of process by mail or other method acceptable under the laws of the State of New York. ANY CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS AND/OR AWARDS SHALL BE LIMITED TO ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ENTERING THIS PROMOTION. REGISTERED CONTESTANT HEREBY WAIVES ANY RIGHTS OR CLAIMS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ENTRANT, WHETHER FORESEEABLE OR NOT AND WHETHER BASED ON NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE. EACH PARTY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO A JURY. The releases hereunder are intended to apply to all claims not known or suspected to exist with the intent of waiving the effect of laws requiring the intent to release future unknown claims. This Giveaway is void outside the U.S. and where prohibited or restricted by law, and subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws. Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify any entrant it finds to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Giveaway or violating these Official Rules.

8. PUBLICITY AND RELEASE FORMS: Sponsor reserves the right to use the Giveaway for publicity purposes in any media, and to use the name, likeness, and hometown name and/or prize information of prize winners as part of that publicity, without any compensation or prior review, unless prohibited by law. Each prize winner will be required to submit a declaration and a liability/publicity release and confirmation that the prize winner has followed the rules of the Giveaway, in the form supplied by Sponsor (the "Declaration and Release"), and signed by the prize winner. The Declaration and Release must be signed and returned within seven (7) days of notification. Prize won by an eligible entrant who is a minor in his/her state of residence will be awarded to minor's parent or legal guardian who must sign and return all required documents. In the event the Affidavit and Release is not returned within this period, an alternate winner may be selected for such prize. Any prize notification or prize returned to Sponsor as undeliverable will result in the awarding of that prize to an alternate winner (who will be required to comply with similar procedures).

9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES: The Releasees shall not be liable for: (i) late, lost, delayed, stolen, misdirected, incomplete unreadable, inaccurate, garbled or unintelligible entries, communications or affidavits, regardless of the method of transmission; (ii) telephone system, telephone or computer hardware, software or other technical or computer malfunctions, lost connections, disconnections, delays or transmission errors; (iii) data corruption, theft, destruction, unauthorized access to or alteration of entry or other materials; (iv) any injuries, losses or damages of any kind caused by the prize or resulting from acceptance, possession or use of a prize, or from participation in the Giveaway; or (v) any printing, typographical, administrative or technological errors in any materials associated with the Giveaway. In the event that more prize notice emails are sent for any of the prizes than the number of prizes available as specified in these Official Rules, a random drawing will be conducted from all entrants who received such notices to award number of prizes specified in these Official Rules. Sponsor disclaims any liability for damage to any computer system resulting from participating in, or accessing or downloading information in connection with this Giveaway, and reserve the right, in their sole discretion, to cancel, modify or suspend the Giveaway should a virus, bug, fraud, computer problem, unauthorized intervention or other causes beyond Sponsor’s control, corrupt the administration, security or proper play of the Giveaway. Sponsor may prohibit an entrant from participating in the Giveaway or winning a prize if, in its sole discretion, it determines such entrant is attempting to undermine the legitimate operation of the Giveaway in any way by cheating, hacking, deception, or any other unfair playing practices of intending to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other players or Sponsor representatives. Use of any automated system to participate is strictly prohibited and will result in disqualification. Sponsor may disqualify at its sole discretion any entries it believes are created by an automated system or exceed the maximum of one entry per natural person/email address. Disputes regarding these Official Rules and/or this Giveaway will be governed by the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles. Any and all legal actions or claims arising in connection with this Giveaway must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within New York County, New York or, at Sponsor’s sole discretion, anywhere else in the United States. CAUTION: ANY ATTEMPT TO DELIBERATELY DAMAGE THE IBT MODAL WINDOW OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMATE OPERATION OF THE GIVEAWAY MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWS AND WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE GIVEAWAY. SHOULD SUCH AN ATTEMPT BE MADE, SPONSORS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK REMEDIES AND DAMAGES (INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, INCLUDING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

10. PRIVACY. Please refer to Sponsor’s privacy policy located at http://www.ibtimes.com/corporate/privacy for important information regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by Sponsor.

11. WINNER LIST. For names of the winners, send your request in a self-addressed, stamped envelope to: The IBT Media Email Address Monthly Giveaway Winners List, 7 Hanover Square, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004. Winner lists will be sent out once winners have been verified. The name of the all winners will be posted only for 30 days after the end of the Entry Period.

BY ENTERING, YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND ACCEPTED ALL OF THESE GIVEAWAY RULES.